Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 09 Nov 1999 17:07:48 -0700 | From | "Jeff V. Merkey" <> | Subject | Re: Reiserfs licencing - possible GPL conflict? |
| |
David,
This is not what it says. but its his code, and he can do whatever he likes with it.
Jeff
David Schwartz wrote: > > I think you're misunderstanding the plain language of what he is saying. He > is saying that he is offering it under the GPL license. But if you want > additional rights not granted under the GPL license (such as the right to > include it in a proprietary operating system), you may be able to purchase > them from him. > > DS > > > Mike, > > > > My attorneys have reviewed this license and they tell me that this means > > that the ReiserFS is ***NOT*** open sourced. Using it with this > > restriction makes any commercial vendors who want to ship it liable for > > damages claims, since the act of shipping it means they will integrate > > it with an OS. We thought of doing something similiar with NWFS, but > > our attorneys, after spending several weeks examining the GPL and > > reviewing case law for open source IP, advised us is that we either > > could "give it all away" or restrict it, but that if we placed any > > restrictions on it, it wasn't open sourced. If you place any use > > restrictions, then you are in essence not releasing as "open" source. > > As such, we opted for the full GPL with no restrictions, since they > > defeat the whole purpose under current US law. I know lots of folks > > want to maintain some control (which is not a bad thing if you are > > trying to turn a profit), but they should understand that a GPL+ license > > scheme defeats the whole point and makes the stuff less attractive ..... > > > > Food for thought. > > > > Jeff > > > > > > "Mike A. Harris" wrote: > > > > > > This message is not intended to start a negative discussion, but > > > rather to clarify some licencing confusion. I hope that after > > > reading this, a quick and simple change to the distribution of > > > reiserfs which will eliminate licencing confusion, and possible > > > legal holes. (Might even be a good idea to have a lawyer look > > > over the text.) > > > > > > I just downloaded the latest 2.2.13 reiserfs patch for linux, and > > > just read the file: > > > > > > /usr/src/linux/fs/reiserfs/README > > > > > > Inside this readme file it contains the 'licence terms' of the > > > reiserfs code. > > > > > > Here is the relevant portion from that file reformatted for > > > email, but otherwise intact: > > > > > > ---- Reiserfs licence ------------------------------------------ > > > Reiserfs is hereby licensed according to the Gnu Public License, > > > but with the following special terms: you may not integrate it > > > into any kernel (or if not added to a kernel, into any software > > > system) which is not also a GPL kernel (software system) without > > > obtaining from Hans Reiser an exception to this license. > > > > > > Along with that exception you will probably also obtain support > > > and customization services, all of it for a fee. In the event > > > that you (or a court) do not accept this interpretation of the > > > GPL, you may choose to not use Reiserfs. I (Hans Reiser) retain > > > all rights to license it as I desire in ways other than this > > > license. > > > > > > Note that it is the policy of Namesys to license its software on > > > reasonable terms which are in accord with the antitrust laws. > > > While one might argue that the GPL violates the antitrust laws, > > > you should contact us and I believe you will find that we are > > > willing to license in accord with those laws. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > I have not compiled or used reiserfs yet due to licencing > > > confusion. > > > > > > Once again, let me state that the purpose of this email message > > > is to CLARIFY the reiserfs licence terms, and if in fact it is > > > licenced using the GNU General Public Licence V2 or later, to > > > have the relevant text of the file changed to reflect this, and > > > to also include the relevant and required GNU "COPYING" file > > > which contains the full text of the GPL licence. > > > > > > There, now that that is said... > > > > > > The text above from the reiserfs readme file states "Gnu public > > > licence". Strictly speaking - legally - no such licence exists > > > to my knowledge. A court of law would probably not equate "GNU > > > public licence" to be the same as "GNU General Public Licence", > > > and as such I would like to see this clarified if possible. > > > > > > The GPL is referenced later in the statement, which makes me > > > believe that reiserfs is in fact intended to be under the GPL > > > licence. However, the first paragraph goes on to mention what > > > appear to be "further restrictions" which are explicitly > > > prohibited by the GPL licence. Further inspection seems to show > > > that the "restrictions" are not really so - even though worded as > > > such, because any GPL work must remain GPL anyways. So basically > > > the "following special terms" are not necessary to begin with > > > because the GNU GPL allready explicitly forbids inclusion in a > > > non GPL work. > > > > > > One other thing: Hans, et al. are perfectly free to licence > > > their code under any number of different licencing schemes, as > > > stated more or less in the above blurb from the readme. This is > > > perfectly ok, and doesn't in any way muck with GPL issues. > > > > > > What is certainly unclear however is WHAT the EXACT licencing of > > > this filesystem code is, and not in writing that is open to > > > interpretation. > > > > > > Thus, I suggest openly, that to rectify any confusion, and also > > > make things more "legally sound": > > > > > > 1) If reiserfs is in fact licenced under GNU GPL, that the GNU > > > GPL licence file be included with it. This is the "COPYING" > > > file which is available from http://www.gnu.org, or comes with > > > virtually any official GNU software. Lack of inclusion of the > > > actual text of the licence leaves room for legal > > > "assumptions". Don't assume - include the actual licence > > > text explicitly. > > > > > > 2) The GPL licence actually states that the licence text must > > > be included with the code for which is licenced with. In > > > other words, to licence something under GPL, you must include > > > the full text of the licence. Also, any code which is GPL > > > licenced, needs to have text in the source code in comments or > > > whatnot that claims something along the lines "This code is > > > licenced under the GNU GPL licence version 2 or later"... > > > > > > Reference from the GPL: > > > > > > 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's > > > source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you > > > conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an > > > appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep > > > intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the > > > absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the > > > Program a copy of this License along with the Program. > > > > > > Also from the GPL: > > > > > > How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs > > > > > > If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the > > > greatest possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this > > > is to make it free software which everyone can redistribute and > > > change under these terms. > > > > > > To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is > > > safest to attach them to the start of each source file to most > > > effectively convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file > > > should have at least the "copyright" line and a pointer to where > > > the full notice is found. > > > > > > <one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what > > > it does.> > > > Copyright (C) 19yy <name of author> > > > > > > This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or > > > modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as > > > published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of > > > the License, or (at your option) any later version. > > > > > > This program is distributed in the hope that it will be > > > useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied > > > warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. > > > See the GNU General Public License for more details. > > > > > > You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public > > > License along with this program; if not, write to the Free > > > Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA > > > 02111-1307 USA > > > -------------------- > > > > > > If the reiserfs code and licencing were modified using the > > > guidelines given directly in the GPL licence document, it would > > > make things much more understandable and "unambiguous". > > > > > > Further licencing of reiserfs code could be included in a > > > "LICENCE" file of sorts. Something like: > > > > > > [LICENCE] This software is hereby licenced under the GNU General > > > Public Licence version 2 or later. Please see the file "COPYING" > > > which should have accompanied this software distribution for > > > details of that licence. > > > > > > Further licencing options are available for commercial and/or > > > other interests directly from the author at: <email address> > > > > > > Well, this is just a suggestion, meant in good - for both > > > reiserfs, and for Linux and GNU as well. I hope that the > > > licence text is updated in a similar way to what I've suggested > > > above, and I hope to soon try out the reiserfs code! > > > > > > Who knows, perhaps we'll even see it in-kernel eventually? > > > > > > Well, take care everyone! > > > TTYL > > > > > > -- > > > Mike A. Harris Linux advocate > > > Computer Consultant GNU advocate > > > Capslock Consulting Open Source advocate > > > > > > Join the FreeMWare project - the goal to produce a FREE program in > > > which you can run Windows 95/98/NT, and other operating systems. > > > > > > http://www.freemware.org > > > > > > - > > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe > > linux-kernel" in > > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu > > > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > > > > - > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu > > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > >
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |